Wayne Stickland

The self-represented plaintiff commenced an action against the lawyers and a consultant acting for a corporation in which he is a minority shareholder, alleging negligence and enabling oppression.

The court initiated a Rule 2.1 review to determine if the claim was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found that while the plaintiff may eventually have a viable claim depending on the outcome of his main oppression action, the current claim against the corporation's professionals was premature and an abuse of process.

The action was dismissed without prejudice, with leave required to recommence after the main action concludes.

The appellant mother appealed a custody and access order granting her custody of the parties’ two children and providing the father with access.

The father argued the trial judge erred in concluding that an earlier ex parte order granting him temporary custody was obtained through incomplete disclosure and that the resulting status quo should not influence the best interests analysis under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The appeal also alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias based on the trial judge’s questioning of witnesses.

The court held the trial judge was entitled to find that material facts were not fully disclosed on the ex parte motion and that the resulting temporary custody arrangement constituted an unlawful status quo.

No reasonable apprehension of bias was established and the custody determination based on the children’s best interests was entitled to deference.

The defendant in two separate actions arising from the same motor vehicle accident moved to have the actions tried together or sequentially, and to transfer the venue of one action from North Bay to Sudbury.

The court dismissed the motion to try the actions together as premature, noting that one action was at a much more advanced stage than the other.

The court also dismissed the motion to change venue, finding that the plaintiff's choice of North Bay was reasonable and the defendant failed to show that Sudbury was a significantly better venue.

The motions were dismissed without prejudice to being renewed closer to trial.

The defendants moved for leave to require the plaintiff to attend further medical examinations and a further examination for discovery in a long‑running civil action set down for trial.

The parties resolved the medical examination issue, leaving only the request for further discovery.

The court held that leave to conduct additional discovery after an action is set down for trial requires proof of a substantial or unexpected change in circumstances.

While the passage of time and new expert reports did not meet that threshold, amendments to the statement of claim created uncertainty regarding the alleged cause of an aircraft engine failure.

The court granted limited leave for a further examination for discovery of up to one hour strictly concerning the amendments, applying proportionality principles under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Following a family law trial where a separation agreement was set aside in full, the court determined the issue of costs.

The successful party sought costs after prevailing on the issue of whether the agreement should be invalidated.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court reiterated the presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs and considered the importance of the issues, the parties’ conduct, and the reasonableness of the legal fees.

The court found the responding party’s conduct unreasonable for forcing the matter to trial and failing to meaningfully engage in resolving the dispute.

Partial indemnity costs of $11,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes were ordered.